{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105835", "time_of_filling": "2023-10-02 10:42:35", "domain_names": [ "actilyse.net" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "QINGRU WU" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

A. Complainant's Factual Allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant's statements of fact can be summarised as follows:<\/p>\n

The Complainant is a German family-owned pharmaceutical group of companies founded in 1885 by Albert Boehringer in Ingelheim am Rhein.<\/p>\n

The Complainant has become a global research-driven pharmaceutical enterprise and has today approximately 140 affiliated companies and 53,000 employees worldwide. The Complainant reached a global revenue of c. EUR 24.1bn in 2022.<\/p>\n

The Complainant avers that ACTILYSE is a 'fibrinolytic treatment of acute ischaemic stroke, acute myocardial infarction, acute massive pulmonary embolism and Fibrinolytic treatment of occluded catheters'.<\/p>\n

In addition to the trade mark set out in the above section 'Identification of rights', and many more in its portfolio, the Complainant owns numerous domain names containing the trade mark ACTILYSE, most notably <actilyse.com> (registered on 7 October 1996).<\/p>\n

B. Respondent's Factual Allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent has failed to serve a Response in this UDRP administrative proceeding, the result of which being that the Complainant's factual allegations are uncontested.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings in respect of the domain name <actilyse.net> ('the disputed domain name').<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

A. Complainant's Submissions<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant's contentions can be summarised as follows:<\/p>\n

I. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the disputed domain name incorporates the trade mark ACTILYSE in its entirety, and that the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) <.net> is a standard registration requirement, such thar it should be disregarded in the assessment of confusing similarity.<\/p>\n

The Complainant therefore concludes that the disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark.<\/p>\n

II. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not affiliated with, nor authorised by, the Complainant in any way. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with, the Respondent. The Respondent has not been authorised or licensed by the Complainant to make any use of the Complainant's trade mark ACTILYSE nor to apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.<\/p>\n

The Complainant further states that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page where it is offered for sale for USD 1450 and such use evidences the Respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests.<\/p>\n

In view of the above, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the dispute domain name.<\/p>\n

III. The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith<\/strong><\/p>\n

Registration<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant avers that the ACTILYSE was registered numerous years before the registration of the disputed domain name and that a Google search for the term 'actilyse' would have revealed several results all of which relating to the Complainant. Therefore, the Complainant states that it is inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant at the time of registration of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

Use <\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant avers that the Respondent uses the disputed domain name in bad faith in so far as the Respondent offers the disputed domain name for sale in excess of the initial registration costs (USD 1450). The Complainant further avers that an offer to sell a disputed domain name in excess of out-of-pocket costs may evidence bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the UDRP Policy.<\/p>\n

In view of the above, the Complainant therefore concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.   <\/p>\n

B. Respondent’s Submissions<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent has failed to serve a Response in this UDRP administrative proceeding, the result of which being that the Complainant's submissions are uncontested.<\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP Policy).<\/p>", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP Policy).<\/p>", "bad_faith": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the UDRP Policy).<\/p>", "procedural_factors": "

The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Gustavo Moser" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-10-25 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant relies upon the following registered trade mark, amongst others:<\/p>\n